Talk:Lamp stand mechanical arm
From DDL Wiki
(Difference between revisions)
(New page: ==Client comments on the Mechanical Analysis== The mechanical analysis provides useful information for the weight support in the lamp linkage. My few comments are: *Please indicate the cu...) |
|||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| + | =Client Comments on Report= | ||
| + | We received your [http://ddl.me.cmu.edu/ddwiki/index.php?title=Lamp_stand_mechanical_arm&oldid=16636 report]. Your summary suggests that your findings are only (1) that the DFA has no room for improvement, and (2) that disassembly can be improved (but how specifically?). Are these the only significant findings? | ||
| + | |||
| + | Specific comments follow: | ||
| + | # You include significant discussion on general relationships with our suppliers or shop practices such as stocking backup tooling. This is not necessary - suppliers need only meet our specs and would not be subject to product liability if they fulfill their specs. We would like you to focus on your product. The stakeholder needs more specific to the product itself are more critical, and here you seem to be missing some important ones: safety, durability / life, stable, flexible mounting, flexible lighting, does not damage surfaces, etc. Please revise to focus on specifics for this product, and please provide a bullet list of needs for the customer and other significant stakeholders with specific needs. | ||
| + | # Please provide a picture or diagram to support understanding of your system function descriptions. | ||
| + | # In the mechanical analysis, you suggest that there is a "balance between how robust the joints are and the weight they can support". What do you mean? | ||
| + | # You state that your mechanical analysis will "show what the optimal material combination is". Where is this determined? | ||
| + | # Your mechanical analysis does not appear to examine a worst-case scenario. Why do you think the case you tested is most relevant? | ||
| + | # Your component list lacks introductory text. What are the findings? | ||
| + | # We are surprised that so many of the parts, particularly the fasteners, are made from aluminum because it is quite soft. How do you know this is the material. Similarly, why is the spring brass rather than spring steel? | ||
| + | # You mention that "DFM optimizes the manufacturing of a product". We understand DFM to be about optimizing a product for manufacturability, quite a different thing. Please comment. | ||
| + | # What is "DSA"? | ||
| + | # You suggest that the lamp materials have very little value at end of life; however, aluminum does have value and can be sold for recycling. | ||
| + | # The sector you identified for EIOLCA seems to be representative of manufacturing; however you didn't examine the use phase. Is the manufacturing phase significant compared to use? | ||
| + | # You suggest that the best ways to reduce GHGs is redesigning manufacturing or trucking processes, but these are outside of our control. What are the aspects of the product itself that contribute to these (e.g.: more operations required? more space required in trucking?)? | ||
| + | # Your FMEA suggests that the friction knob is the most critical failure mode. What suggestions do you have for improvement? | ||
| + | |||
| + | We look forward to seeing your research results and new ideas in the next report. | ||
==Client comments on the Mechanical Analysis== | ==Client comments on the Mechanical Analysis== | ||
Revision as of 21:05, 30 September 2008
Client Comments on Report
We received your report. Your summary suggests that your findings are only (1) that the DFA has no room for improvement, and (2) that disassembly can be improved (but how specifically?). Are these the only significant findings?
Specific comments follow:
- You include significant discussion on general relationships with our suppliers or shop practices such as stocking backup tooling. This is not necessary - suppliers need only meet our specs and would not be subject to product liability if they fulfill their specs. We would like you to focus on your product. The stakeholder needs more specific to the product itself are more critical, and here you seem to be missing some important ones: safety, durability / life, stable, flexible mounting, flexible lighting, does not damage surfaces, etc. Please revise to focus on specifics for this product, and please provide a bullet list of needs for the customer and other significant stakeholders with specific needs.
- Please provide a picture or diagram to support understanding of your system function descriptions.
- In the mechanical analysis, you suggest that there is a "balance between how robust the joints are and the weight they can support". What do you mean?
- You state that your mechanical analysis will "show what the optimal material combination is". Where is this determined?
- Your mechanical analysis does not appear to examine a worst-case scenario. Why do you think the case you tested is most relevant?
- Your component list lacks introductory text. What are the findings?
- We are surprised that so many of the parts, particularly the fasteners, are made from aluminum because it is quite soft. How do you know this is the material. Similarly, why is the spring brass rather than spring steel?
- You mention that "DFM optimizes the manufacturing of a product". We understand DFM to be about optimizing a product for manufacturability, quite a different thing. Please comment.
- What is "DSA"?
- You suggest that the lamp materials have very little value at end of life; however, aluminum does have value and can be sold for recycling.
- The sector you identified for EIOLCA seems to be representative of manufacturing; however you didn't examine the use phase. Is the manufacturing phase significant compared to use?
- You suggest that the best ways to reduce GHGs is redesigning manufacturing or trucking processes, but these are outside of our control. What are the aspects of the product itself that contribute to these (e.g.: more operations required? more space required in trucking?)?
- Your FMEA suggests that the friction knob is the most critical failure mode. What suggestions do you have for improvement?
We look forward to seeing your research results and new ideas in the next report.
Client comments on the Mechanical Analysis
The mechanical analysis provides useful information for the weight support in the lamp linkage. My few comments are:
- Please indicate the current weight of lamp head assembly. Therefore a design safety factor can be calculated.
- The analyze assumes a right angle between two lamp arms so that the lamp head assembly does not result any torque at joint 2. However, in most scenarios, the angle at joint 1 is less than 90 degrees (e.g. 60 or 45 degrees). An analysis for a worst-case scenario causing a maximum torque at joint 2 is required, and it would change the design safety factor mentioned in the first comment.
